REAL NEWS: July 4 by SIGNYM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thanx, Sig...I covered #1, but it's good to hear about #3 again; we need to keep being reminded that the "austerity" measures didn't work, 'cuz our guys keep wanting to implement them here, and people don't notice that they didn't help over there.

What's ironic is that none of those are "news", they're ongoing issues of long standing. Part of the reason the media doesn't cover stuff like that is the short attention span of the average news consumer; they want "new" news! Once it's out of the headlines, it might as well not be happening (to a large extent), for all our current media cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Population is still rising This is another one of the top three. Nothing positive to report here, either.

But that's a no-brainer. The majority of the people already born are going to grow up and have children of their own in the coming years. It's not going to suddenly stop rising, and it won't peak for a long time to come, even if effective measures to lower infant mortality and raise the education of women etc. were to be introduced world-wide right now. Especially with life expectancy rising parallel to that.

Honestly, that's an area where only a change in demographic/economic trends makes sense reporting along-side this fact. I may be wrong but the trend is actually not too disheartening, global fertility rates slow falling and economic growth happening in developing countries?

I mean, sure, we're going to be a LOT of people on the planet, but it's ultimately, more likely than not, going to stabilize. Potentially, numbers might even fall after that, who knows.

This doesn't have to be a doomsday scenario.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 7:43 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sorry, Rouka. I wish you were right, but I don't think the rate is slowing...certainly in some countries it is, especially Western countries, but...

Quote:
Nigeria expected to have larger population than US by 2050

UN predicts that Africa – and Nigeria in particular – will be at forefront of huge global population rise over next century http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jun/13/nigeria-large
r-population-us-2050

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 7:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

We don't have to have catastrophic global warming either, but in order to reach a demographic transition you have to have national powers that consider educating girls and women to be a worthwhile goal. Not surprisingly, nations which oppress women the most have the highest birthrates.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry, Rouka. I wish you were right, but I don't think the rate is slowing...certainly in some countries it is, especially Western countries, but...
Quote:
Nigeria expected to have larger population than US by 2050

UN predicts that Africa – and Nigeria in particular – will be at forefront of huge global population rise over next century http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jun/13/nigeria-large
r-population-us-2050

The overall rate is slowing, though, I think, and the article itself points out that fertility rates are expected to drop in Africa, as well, in time.

Population increase is not a trend that will be turned around in 50 years. If you make it well upward of 100 years, you can have a reasonable discussion.

Basically, population growth will not continue at its current rate, in all reasonable likelihood. It will eventually level off. Then it can potentially reverse itself a little, like it does in so many developed countries already. It is NOT unreasonable to expect that it will. The general trend seems to be pointing toward it. But that will take a LOT of time, none of us alive now will see it happen.

A much larger population WILL happen, and many of us will see it, no matter what we do, this cannot be changed. The people who will have those future kids have already been born and fertility rates won't drop overnight. Panicking about that fact makes no sense. We just have to accept that. But looking at the overall trend - where actual potential for change lies - it's really not that discouraging.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 8:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Population increase is not a trend that will be turned around in 50 years. If you make it well upward of 100 years, you can have a reasonable discussion.

By then it will be too late to prevent environmental collapse, a process already underway.

That's why I call this REAL news... there's no room in it for rose-colored glasses, just sheer appreciation of reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 8:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
We don't have to have catastrophic global warming either, but in order to reach a demographic transition you have to have national powers that consider educating girls and women to be a worthwhile goal. Not surprisingly, nations which oppress women the most have the highest birthrates.

I utterly agree with that. It's one of the key factors in reducing fertility rates.

I choose to be optimistic about that, on a global level and a long-term timeframe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
By then it will be too late to prevent environmental collapse, a process already underway.

That's why I call this REAL news... there's no room in it for rose-colored glasses, just sheer appreciation of reality.

But then we are already doomed.

There is nothing we can do about the fact that there are going to be a LOT more people on this planet in 100 years. It's a fact.

Are you arguing for something specific to do? Is your focus on preparing for environmental changes, resource management, etc? I love reading sensible ideas about that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 11:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There is nothing we can do about the fact that there are going to be a LOT more people on this planet in 100 years. It's a fact.

Well, you ARE the optimist, aren't you??? I think there's going to be a LOT fewer.

Quote:
Are you arguing for something specific to do? Is your focus on preparing for environmental changes, resource management, etc? I love reading sensible ideas about that.

Oh, I've been there and done that in other threads.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
There is nothing we can do about the fact that there are going to be a LOT more people on this planet in 100 years. It's a fact.
Well, you ARE the optimist, aren't you??? I think there's going to be a LOT fewer.

Apparently, I really am! Boy howdy.

What do you think is going to happen? You mentioned environmental collapse, so I'm guessing massive starvation?

Do you think it's inevitable? I don't see how the demographic trends can be drastically changed without some serious oppression and violence involved, so the solution would be in adapting to climate changes?

Quote:

Quote:
Are you arguing for something specific to do? Is your focus on preparing for environmental changes, resource management, etc? I love reading sensible ideas about that.
Oh, I've been there and done that in other threads.

Ah, good to know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:03 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

A couple of pandemics, a few total wars and it all should be sorted. Not to mention the zombie apocalypse is coming. Is there really any point in stockpiling food?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 4:56 AM

http://on.ted.com/Rosling2012

I wanted to add this. A TED presentation by Hans Rosling concerning fertility rates, influencing factors and the inevitable "big fill-up", as he calls it, leading up to a projected 10 billion people by around 2100.

I highly recommend him, he's fantastically entertaining and comprehensible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 5:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Starvation is expected...

Yield Trends Are Insufficient to Double Global Crop Production by 2050

Quote:
...we track four key global crops—maize, rice, wheat, and soybean—that currently produce nearly two-thirds of global agricultural calories. We find that yields in these top four crops are increasing at 1.6%, 1.0%, 0.9%, and 1.3% per year, non-compounding rates, respectively, which is less than the 2.4% per year rate required to double global production by 2050. At these rates global production in these crops would increase by ~67%, ~42%, ~38%, and ~55%, respectively, which is far below what is needed to meet projected demands in 2050.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0066428

But how can you double grain production with climate shift underway? Consider our Midwest- that vast area which produces the bulk of our corn and soybeans. It suffered a drought not seen in 80 years. Most of the world's major grain/ soy-producing areas: USA, Russia, Brazil, and Australia- have had cropy-destroying drought in the past 10 years. Major rivers have run nearly dry, fires of unprecedented ferocity have burned up millions of acres. In the face of a regime of climate shift, with uncertian rainfall, you can only increase yield with irrigation. Agriculture already takes up 90% of water use: how will that fare in the future, as water shortages become more extreme?

So, yes- starvation.

But starving people don't go quietly, they tend to revolt. So mass unrest, disorder, revolution will be part of the picture.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 5:54 AM

I'm guessing bio-fuels would have to make room for food production, and meat consumption would have to be significantly reduced, to reduce wasting food on animals that could be used for humans instead. Plus, reducing food waste in developed countries, which is astonishingly high.

What about alternative foods, along with that? I heard potatoes might be a promising future staple. Less demanding and quicker to grow than many grains.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, food waste in ALL countries is astonishingly high. In India, roughly 40% is lost to spoilage before it even gets to market. There are many things that could be done, at least in the USA: For example, the amount of water and fertilizer that we waste on lawns is ridiculoulsy high. We could use them to grow the equivalent of the old "victory gardens", not only improving our food but also reducing the amount of carbon needed to transport food from farm to home (at least in the summer). In other areas, the use of refrigeration (for perishables) would help. Urban gardening, rooftop gardening is a great idea, at least for fruits, veggies, chickens or guineafowl, and rabbits.

Cutting back on meat is a good idea, but quite honestly grain-eating is not what we're evolved for. It'll keep you alive, it might even make you fat, but it won't make you healthier. I personally refuse to give up meat because my triglycerides just shoot way the hell up when I eat a lot of carbs. And therein lies part of the problem: the wealthy will want to continue eating what makes them feel better, while the poor will starve. Food goes to those who can pay, not to those who need it.

But since we're in the realm of talking about what "could" be done to improve food production, why not talk about what "could" be done to reduce population growth? One is just about as likely as the other (ie, not at all likely) but both are worthy of discussion.

I've often thought that we could use international market agreements to institute social change. (Of course, our international markets would have to be run by something other than corporations). For example, by agreement, nations must assess tariffs on imports, tariffs being impose as follows:

a 5% tariff for every percent 10% female illiteracy rate

a 5% tariff for non-democratic elections (ie not certified)

a 5% tariff for every tonne of CO2 emissions per capita over 10

and so forth

Even despots, when they see their export market shriveling in the face of tariffs, may engineer SOME reforms to improve their overall personal wealth.

-------------------

I noticed that the REAL NEWS threads (so far) have a habit of turning into a discussion of what "could" be done. In my mind, there is no end of things that "could" be done. I could go on and on... in fact, I've only touched on half (or less) of my ideas on what "could" be done. The actions I'm proposing are practical, humane, and effective. The problem is, they WON'T be done, because it would require that the current elite be deposed and decision-making be devolved to the vast majority. Unless the vast majority take up the cause on their own behalf, and we get off our present path, we'll wind up in catastrophe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Actually, food waste in ALL countries is astonishingly high. In India, roughly 40% is lost to spoilage before it even gets to market.

Seems like there is a LOT of potential, then. :) Doesn't seem so bleak, viewed in that light.

I do agree about encouraging food gardens and urban gardening. Seems to be a small but potentially growing trend already.

Quote:

Cutting back on meat is a good idea, but quite honestly grain-eating is not what we're evolved for. It'll keep you alive, it might even make you fat, but it won't make you healthier. I personally refuse to give up meat because my triglycerides just shoot way the hell up when I eat a lot of carbs. And therein lies part of the problem: the wealthy will want to continue eating what makes them feel better, while the poor will starve. Food goes to those who can pay, not to those who need it.

I actually agree that grains aren't the best possible food. But it is the reason we as humans were able to create such fantastical population sizes in the first place, I think. Cutting it out for a majority of people isn't a realistic approach, unless we replace it with another high-energy plant-based staple. Meat is just too expensive to feed the numbers. Though grazing animals can actually be really helpful in restoring landscapes and many landscapes can feed people through animals where other agriculture is not feasible (another TED presentation), so there is that angle.

I refuse to accept that the world's poor starving because they can't afford food is an inevitable future reality, especially when so many developing nations are making such strides in other areas.

Quote:

I've often thought that we could use international market agreements to institute social change. (Of course, our international markets would have to be run by something other than corporations). For example, by agreement, nations must assess tariffs on imports, tariffs being impose as follows:

a 5% tariff for every percent 10% female illiteracy rate

a 5% tariff for non-democratic elections (ie not certified)

a 5% tariff for every tonne of CO2 emissions per capita over 10

and so forth

Even despots, when they see their export market shriveling in the face of tariffs, may engineer SOME reforms to improve their overall personal wealth

While I don't think despots are the leading cause of female illiteracy, this seems like an interesting angle. Coupling tariffs with support for projects that help encourage the stated goals (literacy, resource conservation, limitation of emissions, etc.) would be the most sensible, so as to combine sanctions with assistance to overcome them.

I'm more inclined to put my money on the will of regular people to have a better life. Supporting projects and local efforts that are effective at reducing poverty/child mortality and promoting female education. Especially projects run by local women. That's something I feel will have a faster impact than anything dependent on breaking corporate power, which is a project that will take some amount of time, if I'm not mistaken.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Of course despots are a leading cause of female illiteracy. If you're looking at nations which deny women even the most basic forms of legal equity- the right to own property, the right to vote, access to birth control, redress of rape - women aren't going to get very far. Then, combine that with constant internecine wars for control of resources (and the money that gets to be skimmed off them) you have situations in broad brush that create insurmountable misery.

Assistance to individuals is all well and good, but it won't correct the bigger problems, and tends to get blown away in the winds of war.

BTW- I don't like TED. I find it fatuous to the power elite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Of course despots are a leading cause of female illiteracy. If you're looking at nations which deny women even the most basic forms of legal equity- the right to own property, the right to vote, access to birth control, redress of rape - women aren't going to get very far. Then, combine that with constant internecine wars for control of resources (and the money that gets to be skimmed off them) you have situations in broad brush that create insurmountable misery.

Assistance to individuals is all well and good, but it won't correct the bigger problems, and tends to get blown away in the winds of war.

You can have despotism without female oppression, plenty of it. Misogyny is a leading cause of female illiteracy, be it rooted in cultural tradition or religious extremism.

And yes, war will blow good efforts right to shreds, but I still find local projects worth supporting.

Quote:

BTW- I don't like TED. I find it fatuous to the power elite.

How so? All of it? I find it informative on some subjects.

Summarily, I don't share your bleak outlook, and I'm confused by it. What is your point? Do you just want to state the near advent of global doom for the sake of a later "I told you so" or are you interested in honest discussion about what can realistically be done to improve things? All I seem to get from you is doom and gloom and disgust. If that's all you want to share, can you tell me now? Because then I'd rather end the conversation now because it would be pointless. I have no desire to despair at a supposedly inevitable apocalypse.

You suggested tariffs. That sounds swell! Then you immediately qualify it with how corporate interests run the world, rendering it moot. Why bring it up at all if you think it's impossible? Or do you?

It's terribly frustrating, like trying to have a discussion with Eeyore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 9:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TED has banned some very insightful topics because they were "too political". This one, on how rich people really aren't "job creators", by multi-millionaire, entrepreneur and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TED has banned some very insightful topics because they were "too political". This one, on how rich people really aren't "job creators", by multi-millionaire, entrepreneur and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer

Okay, that's pretty low, I agree.

But I still find many of the talks they do have very interesting and informative.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:49 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/megadrought_in_us_southwest_a_bad_omen_fo
r_forests_globally/2665/

Megadrought in U.S. Southwest:
A Bad Omen for Forests Globally

As brutal fires torch tinder-dry dense forests and neighboring homes in the American West, researchers are examining the relationships between drought, wildfire, and a warming climate, predicting mass forest die-offs and prolonged megadrought for the Southwest. These forces are accelerating, they say, and already transforming the landscape. Unchecked, they may permanently destroy forests in the southwestern U.S. and in some other regions around the world.
...

With a highly variable climate, the Southwest boasts perhaps the best-studied megadrought history in the world.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 1:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Summarily, I don't share your bleak outlook, and I'm confused by it. What is your point?

I want to wake people up. There is an apocalypse heading our way, one that we made ourselves, and the only thing stopping us from addressing it is our fear of change. And pandering to that fear, we would rather engage in unwarranted optimism or despair. How pathetic is that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:20 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Summarily, I don't share your bleak outlook, and I'm confused by it. What is your point?
I want to wake people up. There is an apocalypse heading our way, one that we made ourselves, and the only thing stopping us from addressing it is our fear of change. And pandering to that fear, we would rather engage in unwarranted optimism or despair. How pathetic is that?

Overstating problems and pushing despair does not wake people up. The first makes it easier for deniers to point out that you're wrong. The second makes people close their eyes even more, cause what's the point if there's nothing to be done?

It makes me think of gay rights activists who want to protest by getting naked and dancing wildly in front of gay rights deniers. (I have known some of these types of activists.) OK, that's fun and all, but it's not going to win anyone over. It's only going to convince them that gay = crazy.

Honestly, I think the most effective thing to wake people up is Superstorm Sandy, and the fires, and the droughts, etc. It is human nature to ignore a problem until there is actual pain. You can cry wolf until you're blue in the face, but until we start finding sheep carcasses no one will believe you.

I guess, in the end, I guess I don't see much to talk about. I think the best way to be an effective activist for global warming is to take data or start working on new technologies. Talking doesn't do much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 5:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think the best way to be an effective activist for global warming is to take data

Do you think more data will move YOU to act, or rappy? Yeah, I thought not

Quote:
or start working on new technologies.

We're not lacking data or technology, what we're lacking is foresight and will. I think it emblematic that what you think needs to be done seems to exclude you.

Quote:
Talking doesn't do much.

It does if you talk to the right people, often enough. Have you petitioned anyone lately?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:49 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Amazing what one can do with a Canon Rebel T2i and $15 in fireworks made by child slaves in commie china...

photo by PirateNews ARRRGGGG!!!!

In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 7:06 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
I think the best way to be an effective activist for global warming is to take data
Do you think more data will move YOU to act, or rappy? Yeah, I thought not

UM, Sorry... Are you grouping me with Rappy here, making me a non-actor? Just because I don't jump at the chance to do things your way, suddenly I'm Rappy?

Wow. It's a bit bitchy in here tonight. I think I'll hang out in the oral sex thread. And I'm asexual, yo!

Quote:
Quote:
or start working on new technologies.
We're not lacking data or technology, what we're lacking is foresight and will. I think it emblematic that what you think needs to be done seems to exclude you.

"seems" is a dangerous word. Right there with ass-u-me. Did I exclude me?

Yes, there is absolutely room for data and technology. It's not enough to have a gadget that works, the gadget has to have certain levels of convenience and cost and portability and social and political acceptance, and it does have to meld into the current economy and political world or it's not going to happen. (The world being REAL and all, and we have no choice but to live in it.)

We don't have that problem solved. ETA: The best way to get people to do what you want them to do is to make it an obvious, helpful choice for them. So you can keep trying to fear monger people into doing what they don't want, or you can try to make it something that actually benefits them. Better technology is the way.

OK, miss "Do it my way or you're a big filthy self-excluder":

I'm an educator. I have left the world of cutting edge technology (well, I wasn't really there) and I work with very bright very motivated young'uns who will be the next generation of decision makers and tech builders. Many of these hear one side of the story from their wealthy, status-quo loving' parents.

Since you're so good at assuming, sport, why don't you see the obvious and finish off explaining what my personal form of activism is...

And then think about what would result if I took overblown predictions of the apocalypse and your gloomy despair that nothing will save us into the classroom. How would that go for these kids?

Quote:
Quote:
Talking doesn't do much.
It does if you talk to the right people, often enough. Have you petitioned anyone lately?

I don't do petitions much. I have no problem with them, but I don't find them often effective.

I find that actively affecting one brain at a time is a path that fits my skills and the way I want to live my life, and may actually lead to bottoms-up positive results.

But hey, thanks so much for judging me from atop your shiny ornate soapbox. This kind of thing reminds me of why, even when I agree with the cause, I steer clear of the Very Proper and Righteous Activist crowd. They do so easily cast judgement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 7:36 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

http://www.infowars.com/adam-kokesh-in-open-carry-protest/

In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 9:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
UM, Sorry... Are you grouping me with Rappy here, making me a non-actor? Just because I don't jump at the chance to do things your way, suddenly I'm Rappy?

No, I said that more information won't lead you to action, like rappy (or Geezer, for that matter.) You DO know how quickly the ice is melting all over the world, correct? You DO have information on how many gigatons of CO2 climate scientists have estimated we can pump into the atmo and still not trip the 2 deg C change limit, correct? You have read how many years we have left, burning fuel at our current rate? You DO know that you can't cut deals with mother nature, correct?

Well then, what more info do you think you need?

Quote:
Did I exclude me?

Did you INCLUDE you?

Quote:
Yes, there is absolutely room for data and technology. It's not enough to have a gadget that works, the gadget has to have certain levels of convenience and cost and portability and social and political acceptance, and it does have to meld into the current economy and political world or it's not going to happen. (The world being REAL and all, and we have no choice but to live in it.)

OMFG, there are about a zillion solutions to climate shift that are technological I could start out with stuff already in production:

amorphous metal, which would make our transformers 20% more efficient (GEEZER- payin' attention? CHINA is producing those big-time, along with solar panels)

super-efficient industrial motors

solar panels, which now produce more energy than they take to manufacture

energy-efficient windows, better roof design (ridge-vents, double-roof, metal roofs, cool roofs, passive solar design) for home energy efficiency

soda bottle filled with water to bring light into dark homes

energy-efficient pot-stove combinations, to reduce firewood use, solar stoves

Energy efficient cars

...And about a zillion more that are NON-technological:

mandating one shade tree for every seven parking spaces in parking lots

all of the environmental remediation/ mitigation previously suggested

a carbon tax

better land-use planning by urban and suburban communities to reduce travel time (GIS systems as good for that)

There is almost no end to solutions that are already in production, and within our reach, that are politically acceptable to nearly everyone except big business and rightwing Teapartiers. More technology is not the stumbling block, and if you're going to insist on finding that perfect answer that is so innocuous to everyone and so miraculously effective, you'll be looking for a long, long time. Long after the time for doing anything has passed.

Quote:
....what would result if I took overblown predictions of the apocalypse and your gloomy despair that nothing will save us into the classroom.

1) You assume the predictions are overblown. But these aren't my predictions, they're the best science has to offer. And so far, many global warming processes have accelerated well beyond what the models suggested. So, come back to me in five or ten years and we can compare notes and see how "overblown" my predictions are.

2) It depends on how old these children are. If they're in junior high or high school- I would say, become an advisor to a science club, and let 'er rip. If they're kids, you might want to introduce the idea of what is science (looking for truth, not what is "acceptable") and the idea that we all depend on the environment for our survival.

3) It's not that "nothing" will save us. But the only thing that WILL save us is us. Better get those kids cracking on that idea, then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 9:37 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Obama Cancels 4th of July for Our Troops to Pay for His $100-million Vacation!

http://americanoverlook.com/obama-cancels-4th-of-july-for-our-troops/1
0770

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Summarily, I don't share your bleak outlook, and I'm confused by it. What is your point?
I want to wake people up. There is an apocalypse heading our way, one that we made ourselves, and the only thing stopping us from addressing it is our fear of change. And pandering to that fear, we would rather engage in unwarranted optimism or despair. How pathetic is that?

I gotta agree with Mal4Prez here. I don't think your strategy will "wake people up".

You want to motivate people to make positive changes? Tell them options and how they will work. Just telling them "Doom is nigh!" will paralyze anyone who doesn't happen to be an innovator already. Many awesome people are. Many awesome people aren't. Many people just want to live a decent life and have a good future for their kids. Avoiding humanitarian disaster is part of that. If you want large-scale change, you need a transfer of innovation toward the maximum number of people through education and access. Be that in the developed or the developing world.

I mean, who's going to argue against shade trees? They have a ton of positive effects, plus people just plain like looking at trees. It's not that impossible. But 80% of people don't necessarily have the capacity to come up with these ideas. Not because they are stupid or apathetic but because their lives have a different focus. Doesn't make them obstacles, just means they need help making appropriate decisions. Help, not judgment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:07 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Nuttin more Amurican than a hogtied church lady!

www.bettiepageclothing.com

Dont let the sodomite joos in hollyweird get u down.

Animals are Amuricans too!

ARREST POS OBAMA TODAY THEN YOU CAN CELEBRATE INDEPENDENCE

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AR, this is a site dedicated to scifi fans of an unusually intelligent show. I expect more ideas out of the ppl here than I would of any other group I commonly come in contact with. Are you telling me I'm wrong?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:48 PM

So you have a reasonably well-informed audience here.

But either you're preaching to the choir already (people who already care) or you're talking to skeptics. The doom approach is going to be helpful with neither group.

And I may like one scifi show, but I'm no scientist, nor an educator, nor a person of means and influence beyond your ordinary German citizen. I do what I can. I can take advantage of excellent infrastructure to reduce my carbon foot print. I try to buy fair trade and avoid products tainted with exploitation - but I also have limited means and have to make compromises to live decently. I support ecological projects in my local area, flood plains, forest preservation, bike use, tree planting, organic or urban farming. I donate to organisations that I feel support my priorities, when I can. (Mostly Syrian refugees, recently.) I vote Green. I support unions. Many of my friends/family/associates share my values. Some don't but they are still awesome people, who do other fantastic things that benefit society in other ways. Telling them that the apocalypse is coming is the least effective approach of changing their ways. Workable options might do the job.

But I'm not especially creative. I'm no innovator. I do what I do because someone gave me the idea and I am capable of implementing it. I'm sure there is more I can do. That I can't necessarily come up with ideas on my own doesn't mean I don't care to. I like knowing that someone with broader knowledge has reasoned out what is effective and what isn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 10:03 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Women in bikinis given bady cavity seraches in higway robbery patrol car:

US Postal Service photographing 160 billion letters annually:

http://rt.com/usa/us-nsa-mail-spying-706/

VIDEO 28 Injured at California Fireworks When Platform Tips Fires All Mortars Into Crowd:

http://www.weather.com/news/california-fireworks-accident-20130705?hoo
tPostID=27b143c85a42f2466143b9cfab7a412f

back when muskets were assault rifles

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 7:12 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, as opposed to the doom and gloom, score yet another one for this regions damned effective response and cleanup crew - this one coulda been nasty.

14-hour cleanup complete after tanker spills 1,000 gallons of gas

http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti/1000-gallon-gas-spill-cleaned-u
p-after-14-hours/

Despite this place being a podunk backwater, I always find it remarkable just how hands-down badass these guys are, most troubles are FULLY and completely handled within 24hours with zero damage or impact, in fact in all the time I've been here, there's not been a one which wasn't.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 7:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And I may like one scifi show, but I'm no scientist, nor an educator, nor a person of means and influence beyond your ordinary German citizen.

Neither am I. Oh, wait... I AM a scientist! But I didn't invent any one of those ideas... I just read a lot, and I don't reject ides just because they're new.

Quote:
I do what I can. I can take advantage of excellent infrastructure to reduce my carbon foot print. I try to buy fair trade and avoid products tainted with exploitation - but I also have limited means and have to make compromises to live decently. I support ecological projects in my local area, flood plains, forest preservation, bike use, tree planting, organic or urban farming. I donate to organisations that I feel support my priorities, when I can. (Mostly Syrian refugees, recently.)

Good for you! I think a lot of people do that here too.

Quote:
I vote Green. I support unions.

So do I, for all the good it does here.

Quote:
Many of my friends/family/associates share my values. Some don't but they are still awesome people, who do other fantastic things that benefit society in other ways. Telling them that the apocalypse is coming is the least effective approach of changing their ways. Workable options might do the job.

How workable, and at what level? There are a lot of things people can do as individuals, but many things just can't be handled at the individual level. As the saying among some of the left here goes: Hitler would never have been stopped by dumpster-diving. You're fortunate to live in a nation that takes its environmental and social responsibilities more seriously.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:12 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I could start out with stuff already in production:

amorphous metal, which would make our transformers 20% more efficient (GEEZER- payin' attention? CHINA is producing those big-time, along with solar panels)

Yeah. I'm listening.

And as I've said multiple times...

I SUPPORT U.S. ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

I don't talk about specific energy savings strategies because that's not the issue I'm discussing.

My issue is that China has increased its annual carbon emissions by 1.4 TRILLION TONS (and 148%) in the last ten years and shows no sign of slowing down, and that thinking that any or all of the technologies you list - applied to the U.S. alone, or even all North America and the EU - can significantly ameliorate carbon increase without getting China on board is not facing reality.

I know about energy-saving technology. I read about it all the time.

What I'd like to hear is a plan to get China to significantly reduce carbon emisssions, since they're now the major engine behind its increase.

ETA: As noted before, I'll be pretty much out of contact for a couple of weeks, so you have plenty of time to either come up with such a plan, or complain some more that "Geezer doesn't want to do ANYTHING!!!"

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:42 AM

It's outside the "what can we do about it" sphere and it's not a short-term effective solution, but I think the people of China have a growing interest in that subject. And a growing ability/willingness to express their priorities. They're witnessing some ugly environmental effects first-hand and probably aren't shielded from all information about CO2 levels.

It's still China, so this is not necessarily highly influential (yet). Their companies are poisoning baby milk, so... there's a long way to go.

But the Chinese are growing more educated and more prosperous and more self-confident. Their media are growing savvier, too, at circumventing regulations intended to cover up issues. If green priorities reflect the will of the Chinese people enough, it's not like they have to reinvent the wheel to make changes.

ETA: Regarding the baby milk, they're already voting with their money, so to speak, buying foreign-made brands to the point where there's rationing in stores well outside China. They're capable of using their money to express their priorities, so that's a positive thing to attach some optimism to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:49 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Rouka and Mal4, I too want to wake people up. I do what I can on my own small front to lessen my footprint, and protest as well. The only other thing within my power TO do is keep talking about it. For me, it's worth it because the more we talk about it, the more others who read things might talk to OTHERS about it, and that might have an effect. It takes little time out of my life and is worth it to me. I'm not as rabid as Sig, and I don't expect us to be able to solve the situation in time to avoid--well, we're already not avoiding, so that answers that. But if there's any chance informing people causes others to talk about it outside this place, it's worth it to me, because the sooner people act, the more I can hope we will change things, or at least perhaps postpone what I see as the inevitable and maybe science can come up with some things...essentially "who knows?" Just compiling data and not bringing it to peoples' attention is doing nothing, which I won't do.

Obviously none of the hard-core deniers here will be affected, I never imagine that, but there's always the chance it will motivate any of the others here to discuss the issue, think more about it, whatever.

We each have our own approaches; I don't see anything WRONG with talking about it and trying to shake people awake. We "discuss" enough stupid things here that won't make any of our issues any better in the wider world, I see no reason to avoid this, which is to me one of mankind's truly bigger issues.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
How workable, and at what level? There are a lot of things people can do as individuals, but many things just can't be handled at the individual level. As the saying among some of the left here goes: Hitler would never have been stopped by dumpster-diving. You're fortunate to live in a nation that takes its environmental and social responsibilities more seriously.

Just being aware of environmental factors when making voting decisions is useful, right?

That's why I think information is the key factor. If people can understand an issue (by having it explained in layman's terms) and have an understanding of where they can make a difference (personally, locally, nationally, by recycling, walking, voting, signing petitions) they have been given workable options.

If we're going to bring up Hitler, he had a lot invested in controlling the flow of information, by handing out draconian punishments to people who so much as hinted that the War maybe wasn't going stellar. Which was a key opinion-changing issue for a large number of the population. (Judge away, that it was this and not the disappearing citizens.)

We don't generally see people fire-squadded for pointing out environmental issues, so information and advice should keep going out all the time. Just advertising doom without accompanying options will make people tune out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 7:03 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Although you told me you're in Germany privately, I hadn't mentioned it here because I wasn't sure if you wanted it known. Now you've mentioned it, might I say your country has done a bang-up job in some respects, most notably economically and environmentally, in recent times.

The stuff you iterated is the kind of stuff we do too, as far as our personal ability to affect what goes on. I disagree that it's "advertising doom", insofar as what I do is put up information about what's happening with global warming. My own OPINION is full of doom, but I don't "advertise" it, I just state it, and I will always continue to hope I'm wrong. Every step in the right direction is a step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The stuff you iterated is the kind of stuff we do too, as far as our personal ability to affect what goes on. I disagree that it's "advertising doom", insofar as what I do is put up information about what's happening with global warming. My own OPINION is full of doom, but I don't "advertise" it, I just state it, and I will always continue to hope I'm wrong. Every step in the right direction is a step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned.

I think tone is important when trying to get a message across. In fact, it might even change what the message appears to be.

"Humanitarian catastrophe is right around the corner!" will alarm people, but they won't be closer to making changes. The message appears to be "catastrophe is an unchangeable fact, now feel guilty". You push that away and ignore it.

"ABC factors are in play and these here changes can have YXZ effect" just seems so much more helpful. It gives people information on what they can actually do, in big and small ways.

I just much prefer the second type of message.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 9:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

And not to keep piling on, but I was researching the increase in refrigerators in the developing world, and found this.

How Will Energy Demand Develop in the Developing World?

http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf/working_papers/WP226.pdf

Not really cheery.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 10:23 AM

Not entirely bleak, though, either.

From the Conclusions section:

Quote:

It is important to remember, however, that increases in the demand for energy associated with poverty reduction result from increases in household welfare. With a refrigerator, people may spend less time walking to stores or less time cooking. Refrigeration may affect nutrition patterns and improve health outcomes. Similarly, the switch from burning wood to using electric stoves for cooking may not only improve indoor air quality, but reduce greenhouse gas emissions because solid-fuel stoves are inefficient
and gathering wood for cooking can lead to deforestation.

While there is little direct evidence on the consequences of energy-using asset accumulation, Dinkelman (forthcoming) cleverly uses plausibly exogenous variation in the cost of laying electricity distribution
lines in South Africa to show that village-level electrification leads to increased female labor force participation.

So, the same thing that drives up energy demand also encourages the reduction of fertility rates.

Plus, my favorite thing is the suggestions they make.

Quote:

The growth in energy demand along the extensive margin will also create some intriguing opportunities for energy policy. First, while it is an obvious point, poverty reduction is unambiguously good and keeping families in poverty is not a way to reduce energy demand. Second, to avoid shortages, price increases, and unexpected environmental impacts, each country needs to account for how poverty reduction and economic growth are likely to shape future demand for energy and make informed investments in energy infrastructure. Third, the pervasive governmental subsidies of energy prices in the developing world do not send the right signals for taking energy conservation or environmental externalities into account. Moreover, there is evidence from high-income countries that even if households face appropriate prices, they may make decisions about energy-using goods that are myopic. Finally, there is a chance to improve the energy efficiency of assets purchased by the large numbers of households about to come out of poverty through energy efficiency standards, subsidized distribution of efficient and environmentally friendly models, subsidized research on energy efficient technologies, and other market interventions. This could be very important, as most energy-using durables are long-lived.

Now would be the time to encourage all those soon-to-not-be-as-poor countries to look at renewable energy sources wherever possible. Brazil is doing well with dams, it appears. African countries.. shouldn't some of them be able to go nuts with solar energy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 1:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER: I know that you'll be out for a few weeks, but I want to bring up (for the third time) that using tariffs and trade policy is an effective way of getting other nations to change their behavior.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 7, 2013 1:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If we're going to bring up Hitler, he had a lot invested in controlling the flow of information, by handing out draconian punishments to people who so much as hinted that the War maybe wasn't going stellar. Which was a key opinion-changing issue for a large number of the population. (Judge away, that it was this and not the disappearing citizens.)

Thank you for making my point for me. Governments, armies, broadcast media, etc can supersede individual action.

Let me bring up a different example: Being anti-slavery in the USA circa 1850. You might feed one or two slaves on the sly. If you're wealthy, you might engage in buying and then freeing slaves. In small groups, you might operate an Underground Railroad. But there is nothing like getting an army together to obliterate slavery.

The reason why I bring this up is because action HAS to be political as well as individual. Voting, petitioning, getting on the city planning commission, running for office or volunteering for a candidate, protesting, donating to groups who will file lawsuits on your behalf... I'm sure you're aware of all these, but a lot of people tend to dismiss political action as being ineffective, when (in reality) it is the MOST effective thing one can do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 8, 2013 2:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER: I know that you'll be out for a few weeks, but I want to bring up (for the third time) that using tariffs and trade policy is an effective way of getting other nations to change their behavior.

Just a note before I go.

I'd like to think that carbon tariffs would work, but when the idea was floated in 2008/09, China responded very negatively, and pretty much promised to drag any such idea through the WTO courts, probably for years.

If you Google (or Bing) 'carbon tariffs' about half of what you get is from the 08/09 timeframe and starts with "China opposes...", "China denounces...", and "China says carbon tax violates WTO rules".

----------------

I'm not really happy about the conclusions I've been forced to by the data I've found during this discussion. I really wish I felt better about it, but I'm not seeing much of a bright side.

I'm more convinced than ever that we'd be better off preparing for climate change rather than trying to stop it. I believe that train has already left the station.

Fortunately, some of the preparation for climate change does involve reducng energy use and increasing the use of renewables, so that's something, I guess.

See you in a couple of weeks.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:00 AM